Item 22 - Resolution Adopting Local CEQA Guidelines Resolution

Home Browse Search

Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (2023) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2023 City of Santa Ana Local Guidelines 7-20 ©Best Best & Krieger LLP (a) Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites; and (b) Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, the following: (1) Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites; (2) Incorporation of sites within parks, green space, or other open spaces; (3) Covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site; and/or (4) Deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery plan, which makes provision for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to excavation. Such studies must be deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Data recovery shall not be required for a historical resource if the City determines that existing testing or studies have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the archaeological or historical resource, provided that the determination is documented in the EIR and that the studies are deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. (Reference: State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4.) 7.23 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES IN AN EIR. The alternatives analysis must describe and evaluate the comparative merits of a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the project which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but which would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project, and it need not consider alternatives that are infeasible. Rather, an EIR must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. Purpose of the Alternatives Analysis: An EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment. For this reason, a discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effect of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly. Selection of a Range of Reasonable Alternatives: The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects, even if those alternatives would be more costly or would impede to some degree the attainment of the project’s objectives. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to